ordinance_radar

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety traits are covered. The description adds behavioral context: it extracts text from the ordinance body, compares dates, and auto-flags. This goes beyond the annotations by explaining the internal logic and output meaning. No contradiction is present.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is multi-sentence but each sentence contributes value. It is front-loaded with the tool name and primary action. While slightly verbose with both Korean and English, it remains clear and efficient. No superfluous information is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not describe the return format. For a tool that produces a flagged list, the lack of output details is a minor gap. Annotations cover safety, and the description explains the logic, but completeness is hindered by the missing output specification. With sibling tools and complexity considered, a 3 is fair.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description reiterates that one of ordinSeq/id or ordinanceName is needed and provides an example for ordinanceName. It does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: it extracts cited higher-level laws from an ordinance, compares effective dates, and flags ordinances where the higher law was amended after enactment. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like search_law or legal_analysis. The target audience and use case are also explicitly mentioned.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description identifies the target users (ordinance officers) and the context (tracking higher law amendments for maintenance review). It also specifies that either ordinSeq/id or ordinanceName must be provided. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to sibling tools, though the purpose is distinct enough that the guidance is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.